British Writer Pens The Best Description Of Trump I’ve Read

Someone on Quora asked “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote the following response:  

A few things spring to mind.   Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.  

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.  

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.  

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.   And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.  

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.   Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.   And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.   He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.  

  • Jane Godall on apes and Trump’s grooming MacronRead
  • This anti-Trump ad is paid for by Republicans. Watch!
  • If you’re British – check out our sister site, The Hobbledehoy

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.   There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.  

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.  

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.   He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.  

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created? If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.  

Strange Bedfellows: Cardinal Dolan, U.S. Catholicism & Donald Trump

299 thoughts on “British Writer Pens The Best Description Of Trump I’ve Read

  1. The man is certainly a buffoon. BUT there has never, ever been a single press item in the UK, from the moment he announced he was going to run for president, that has, in any way, been anything but a total slur on the man. Relentless one way traffic from the word go. Not even a sporting chance. Liberal (sic) brainwash?
    Those with whom he has an axe to grind are those who completely fail to understand the bigger picture in the World, they can’t even see it let alone see their part in it.
    As Winston Churchill. wrote:
    “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilisation in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

    Actually it wasn’t WC it was DJT. Draining the swamp is seriously misunderstood, he realised that power was stuck within an elite band of brothers – so to speak – controlled by a Civil Service bent and manipulated by a massive global agenda with no real benefit to his own citizens. He at least has the courage to stand up for and understand the importance of the Nation state and the simple truth that all humans are instinctively tribal and within that, individual in those given groups.
    Every time he opens his mouth I laugh. It is pure comedy watching him perform and ball breakingly awful most of the time. But I like the rawness and the crassness in direct difference to the dull sweet talking former lawyer/career politician that spins personal advantage at every turn.


  2. So much has been written about the current President that I believe it is important to understand who he is. I believe that The President is at heart “..a well intentioned man…”.

    While he does not have the depth of a Frederick-like Anti-Machiavellian, neither is he inherently dangerous, as say Richard M Nixon ( whose deeper intelligence, benign appearance, and profoundly devious nature made him significantly more threatening ).

    This President honestly believes in his intent to make things better according to his best understanding of what that “better” is, but this desire emerges more from an arrogance born of un-recognized insecurity, and a deep need for attention than from say real wisdom, humility, or selflessness.

    This President does not have the life experiences, nor the depth of personality that formed a Lincoln, a FDR, a Kennedy, or even a Regan, instead his prior experience was based within a wealthy American Family, and later a hierarchical corporate environment where his voice was the dominant one, all problems could be solved by decrees that a loyal and subservient staff were required to implement.

    This President is principally a narcissist egoically incapable of accepting any vision of himself that contains failure, combined with an overcompensated belief in his own abilities, creating a profound disconnect between himself and others.

    This President is a man of “Vision” ( he is a romantic in the jejune sense ), a large idea thinker, easily influenced by those he believes are “authorities”, and who endures short-attention-spans with little impulse control, and is unable to consider very complex subjects.

    In almost a vain and childlike fashion he lives with the expectation of others to implement his vision, a vision that is communicated via hyperbole, flattery, or an intimidatory anger, and should his design fail it becomes the responsibility of others to explain or “massage” actuality, or at worst he blames and excludes those around him ( aka campaign advisors, ex-wives, current advisors ).

    He confuses his own superficial knowledge with real wisdom, and whose self-absorption allows for only “transactional” relationships incapable of real intimacy and who has no close friends.

    Those who have worked with this President have voiced concerns that the White House will represent a difficult challenge he will find painful ( if not impossible ) to adjust to. “…His drug is attention. He’s so ego-driven…,” as someone noted.

    The possibility exists that this President will see that the onerous responsibilities and demands of this office will far outweigh any assumed awards, and he will become bored and while blaming others and then claiming success, he will resign.

    What is perhaps even more important than the situational-ideolog nature of this President, is the deep sociopolitical forces that brought him to power. As someone once noted “…Donald Trump is a “brick” thrown through the plate glass window of the American established social and political order….”, as such he is a representation of a larger dynamism that exists and with the potential to re-elect him, or someone worse.

    “Trumpism” ( or perhaps more accurately Bannonism ) is a methodology that receives it’s power from a populist political bedrock, and a substantial portion of this bedrock is a socio-economic disenfranchised America that is, in my view, justifiably angry ( and more disturbingly for our political landscape ) afraid.

    This President, in the long run of history, is merely a temporary aberration. In the next 20 years the entire Republican voting demographic that brought him to power will be aging and diminishing, and replaced by a significantly more educated, younger, less conservative, wealthier, and less “White” demographic, as a result the Republican Party will have to re-define itself to stay valid.

    As Americans we look at each other across a seemingly vast socioeconomic and cultural divide and ask ourselves “….how could they possibly vote for such a person….”, without understanding who “the other” is.

    It is incumbent upon those of us who have the capacity to understand those voters who put this individual into office, as JFK once said so aptly…, “….Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal….”.


    1. The voters did not put him into office. He LOST the popular vote. Our antiquated Electoral College system put him into office.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s